Status of Women Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

We talked a lot about transitioning to the prevention model. I'd like you to tell me about the progress being achieved in this kind of program.

[Sheilagh Murphy]

In terms of the EPFA, there are numerous ways in which you can look at progress. One would be in the fact that we have rolled out to six jurisdictions, starting with Alberta, so that we now are covering about 69% of first nations children under that model. It's our expectation that we'll continue to work with the additional jurisdictions and have all jurisdictions under the enhanced prevention framework approach by 2013. That's one area of, I would say, results.

We have been looking most recently at Alberta. We've done an evaluation. It's not complete, but the results there are showing that we have had success in reducing children in care. We have invested $91.8 million over five years in Alberta. Overall, there are now more culturally appropriate placements, more permanency supports for children, and increased use by families of prevention programming, as well as increased use of less costly placements.

In 2007-08, for instance, in Alberta there were 329 in institutional care; in 2009-10 there were 68. There has been a substantial reduction demonstrated by an increased use of more cultural and fewer institutional placements of children unable to be in care by their families.

In terms of kinship care, we had no one in that kind of arrangement in 2007-08; in 2009-10 we had 375. There has been a dramatic increase, demonstrating that there's a support for that type of culturally appropriate placement within the Alberta context. In terms of post-adoptive subsidies, we've gone from none in 2007-08 to 130 in 2009-10.

We're seeing results in Saskatchewan as well, where we have invested since 2008. We have kinship care results of 407 in 2007-08 and 492 in 2009-10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Murphy.

Now I go to Ms. Mathyssen, for the NDP.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I have a number of things. I want to start with the school at Attawapiskat.

The contamination under the school happened in 1989. That's 22 years ago. Subsequently, there were portables put basically on the same site, which meant that the kids were still sick and were being exposed to the diesel contamination.

This is 2011. I first heard about the situation in Attawapiskat in 2005. I understand that it takes a year to plan and that there have to be community consultations and a couple of years for construction, but this happened in 1989. Why does it take so long? It's glacial as a response to the needs of little kids and the educational needs of a community that needed a school in 1989. That was a long time ago. Why are we still waiting for a school in 2011?

[Sheilagh Murphy]

I'm not going to answer that question, as that's not my responsibility. In order to answer it correctly for you, I would prefer that we provide you with a written response on why it has taken so long and what the department has been doing in that intervening period with the community, rather than give you information that may not be correct. I am not responsible for capital infrastructure projects on-reserve, but we can provide that information, if you would like.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes, I would like. I have to be candid; I'm feeling very frustrated by the recurring theme of “I am not responsible”. It feels as though we're in a jurisdictional black hole, and I share Madame Demers' frustration.

I have a question about Jordan's principle. The committee for Indian and Northern Affairs heard last week from the B.C. Attorney General, who stated unequivocally that the scope in regard to Jordan's principle should not be narrowed. We've heard today from Dr. Blackstock that Canada, through INAC, has taken a decision to narrow the scope of Jordan's principle. As Dr. Blackstock pointed out, motion 296 was passed unanimously in December 2007, yet we see this narrowing, this case-by-case basis, and this requirement that there be complex medical needs and multiple service providers.

It feels very much again like a backing away from responsibility. Instead of saying, “These are children; they need services, and we're going to make sure they have what they need so that they have the best and happiest prospects”, we are wrangling.

Why is that narrowing happening? What's going on? What have we forgotten as human beings?

[Corinne Baggley]

When the motion was passed in 2007, INAC and Health Canada worked together to present a federal response to cabinet. That federal response outlines our focus for first nations children under Jordan's principle. The focus is on those who were like Jordan--those who are the most vulnerable, those who have multiple disabilities and require multiple services from across jurisdictions. We thought children in that situation are most vulnerable and are more likely to be the subject of jurisdictional disputes.

That doesn't mean that the response excludes all other first nations children. We focused on the most vulnerable, but in the work we are doing with provinces and first nations, which we continue to do, we are responding to all cases that are presented to us--not just those children with multiple disabilities, but children with a variety of needs. We have been able to connect those cases to the services those children require.

In the event of a federal-provincial jurisdictional dispute--and we haven't been presented with one yet--we are prepared to make sure that the service continues for that child while the federal and provincial governments attempt to resolve the funding or responsibility issues.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

Do I have time left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, you have two minutes.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In your brief you say that “...the child welfare system itself often does not have the mandate or capacity to directly address...[and]...we use a child welfare solution when the primary drivers are outside the child welfare mandate”. I understand that to mean that we're using apprehension and the child welfare system when the real problems are lack of decent housing, poverty, and substance abuse. As we heard in communities such as Iqaluit, there's a desperate lack of support and counselling services. In Iqaluit, in fact, the solution very often was to incarcerate.

The resources are clearly not adequate. There needs to be better coordination and more investment in communities, and an engaging of communities in regard to finding real solutions. The problems have been going on for generations, and the solutions are going to be difficult.

To what degree is INAC determined or prepared to provide that community with the resources it needs in order to deal with some of these problems?

[Sheilagh Murphy]

That's difficult, as there is lots in that question.

I can say that through a variety of programs, which touch child and family services, community development, and education on-reserve, we are trying to work closely with aboriginal, federal, and provincial partners to help address underlying risks and build healthier and safer aboriginal communities. We have done reform work in social programs on-reserve, which is critical to tackling root causes that may contribute to violence against women on- and off-reserve. For example, the prevention approach that we've been talking about today will ultimately enhance a sense of security among women who reside on-reserve, and will thus decrease the risk of violence.

We're also moving forward in terms of income assistance on-reserve to go solely from meeting basic needs towards implementing an active measures approach that will help individuals participate in job readiness and training so that they can find employment. As we make progress in this area, we are hoping to enable on-reserve individuals to become more self-sufficient and self-reliant and so reduce the impact of poverty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Murphy.

Now we're going to a second round.

We have 15 minutes, so I'm going to have a two-minute round. I'm going to really hold you to this, because we have work that we must get done on some decisions that have to be made for the committee.

We will go to Mrs. Simson, for the Liberals. You have two minutes.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first comment is an observation.

I've heard the expression that INAC is working on programs that will become more culturally appropriate, which indicates to me that we didn't get it right the first time and that there was very little consultation. If there had been, we probably would have been culturally appropriate from the outset.

Of the 8,000 children who have currently been apprehended, how many are in institutional care as opposed to a home setting?

[Corinne Baggley]

We would have to provide you with that information; I don't have that breakdown in front of me.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'd really like that. In your testimony you indicated this is being tracked, that you have a sense of it, so if you could break it down as to how many—

[Sheilagh Murphy]

Yes.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

What's the incentive to return a child to the family when organizations are specifically receiving funding based on placing them outside the home? Do you have sense of what incentive there would be?

In other words, how long, on average, does a child remain outside the home? How temporary is it? Do you have a sense of that average?

[Sheilagh Murphy]

I think we'd have to get back to you with that information as well. There's a whole range of timeframes, depending on the situation in which the child is removed from the home.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Would you agree that there is no incentive for the child to be returned if organizations are receiving funding based on that child remaining outside the home? It's a convoluted system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 15 seconds.

[Sheilagh Murphy]

I think it depends on why they were removed from the home. It's difficult to say that's the sole reason.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Chair, I don't have a question; I would like you to ask them to submit those statistics on the children.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Ms. Grewal is next, for the Conservatives.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Apart from the child and family services program, what is Indian and Northern Affairs Canada doing to support aboriginal women?

[Sheilagh Murphy]

I partly responded that we were working on income assistance reform, a movement to active measures that will help provide opportunities and training supports to transition women who may not be employable, as well as men, to employable status. That's one area where we're starting to make inroads on a province-by-province basis.

Another place we've made improvements is with the national child benefit reinvestment project, which is under the national child benefit program. That is focused primarily on reducing child poverty and strengthening on-reserve families in areas of providing child care, home-to-work transition activities, parental and nutritional support, and culturally relevant programming.

We also address programs that target violence against women. The family violence prevention program aims to ensure that first nations on-reserve women and children have a safe place to turn to during situations of family violence. It supports first nations communities to address the root causes of family violence through a range of prevention activities.

In 2007, the department announced an investment of approximately $55 million, over five years, to support the existing network of shelters, including $2.2 million to support the construction of five new shelters. The department currently supports 41 shelters in its network and 350 community-based prevention projects to first nations people residing on-reserve. Under CMHC, a shelter enhancement program covers the capital cost for construction and maintenance of the shelters.

In terms of urban programs, we work with the Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians to improve socio-economic conditions of Métis and non-status Indians and urban aboriginal people who reside off-reserve. As well, through the urban aboriginal strategy, we're partnering with the aboriginal community, local organizations, municipal and provincial governments, and the private sector to support projects in three areas of priority.